https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302389 Writ petitions challenging notices and measures under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act were held not maintainable because an efficacious statutory remedy was available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Court applied the settled rule that Article 226 jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised where the Act provides a complete remedial mechanism, especially in recovery proceedings by banks and financial institutions. It also noted that RBI-related grievances could be addressed within the statutory process. The petitions were dismissed, leaving the petitioners to pursue the statutory remedy under the SARFAESI framework. en-us Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 22 May 2022 15:47:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302389 Writ petitions challenging notices and measures under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act were held not maintainable because an efficacious statutory remedy was available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Court applied the settled rule that Article 226 jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised where the Act provides a complete remedial mechanism, especially in recovery proceedings by banks and financial institutions. It also noted that RBI-related grievances could be addressed within the statutory process. The petitions were dismissed, leaving the petitioners to pursue the statutory remedy under the SARFAESI framework. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302389